What I Think About Current Politics

"What do you call a president who was actually found guilty by the senate?"

I will call him non-existent. You could call that President convicted of impeachment.

I know, I know. Nit-picky, picky.

 

" Fortunately, the Trump administration has rolled back virtually all of Obama's initiatives." … by virtue of Trump's 'pen and a phone' nonsense.

 

Exactly.

It was a horrible precedent Obama set, and Trump ironically used the same underhanded means to undo virtually all of Obama's accomplishments. Being on the right, I'm thankful for this but I realize it won't bode well for our country.

Sadly, the next president will probably do the same, making congress even more impotent. It will be government by the executive and judicial branch, with nothing accomplished for more than a particular party's hold on power.

Quite sad, don't you agree?

 

Totally agree, and unless the Dems also get control of the Senate, there will be executive orders flying out of the White House.

 

I'm old enough to recall Reagan's shift to the middle in his second term, as well as Clinton's when the GOP took the house; it was actually a great time for the country, as both parties were forced to work together if they wished to accomplish anything.

I had high hopes for the Obama administration to moderate some of their goals after their healthcare overreach. But Obama, mostly because of a complicit media that rooted for him, was able to ignore his historical loss of congressional seats and became even more idealogical in his second term as he resorted to the pen and the phone.

I thought Biden might have had an opportunity to heal the country if elected, but he is far too old and white to gain his party's nomination. Thus, we'll continue down the terrible path we're on...

 

I am optimistic that perhaps, the GOP will dump Trump and run a qualified candidate like Kennedy from Louisiana, Sasse from Nebraska, Romney from Utah or Kasich from Ohio. I would also like the Democrats run an effective candidate to challenge the GOP on policy issues and run a respectful campaign instead of having another Trump turd fest. We can certainly do a lot better than this. If the GOP sticks with Trump they will lose by default.

 

Dunno where you get that idea, but there's nothing underhanded about a President issuing an EO that nullifies an unconstitutional EO by a predecessor.

 

Unlike most of the leftists here, as well as a few on the right, I support the intent of the constitution in maintaining a system of checks and balances amongst all three branches of Fed.gov regardless of who is in power.

With this in mind, what Obama did was quite horrible for our country. And while I certainly wished that Trump had refrained from using executive actions to undo the corrupt Obama's actions and had used congress – which was in Republican hands when he was elected – instead, I do realize it was the cowardice of the Republicans that forced Trump to do so.

My point is we're now probably stuck with a president from either party using a pen and a phone instead of congress doing what they are supposed to do. And that's bad for us...

 

You are incorrect. The House does the impeachment. If the House impeaches, then the Senate decides if the President (or Judge) needs to be removed from office.

Just remember, Bill Clinton was impeached by the House. He just wasn't removed from office by the Senate.


From the Constitution
Last paragraph in Article I Section 2:
The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment.

Last two paragraphs in Article I Section 3:

The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.

Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.

 

Impeached doesn't mean removed from office.

 

The legal precedent was set long ago that our 'representatives' that can lie their asses off before congress. An Impeachment trial would put these liars on the stand under oath. They don't want that. They just want a hype to platform their BS straight through the 2020 election. They can prove me wrong by formally impeaching Trump and getting on the stand under oath.

I hope they do. But I think they won't.

 

Back in 2007 when Rep. Nancy Pelosi was the next Democrat to become the Speaker of the House because she was next in line to do so, even the Democratic party leadership was saying that Pelosi was to radical for America, to radical for Congress and to radical for the Democratic party.

But Pelosi was a woman and a member of the "New Left" and also a woman and it would be politically incorrect if she didn't become the Speaker of the House when the Democrats were the majority in the House of Representatives.

Barack Obama was America's first affirmative action President.

Nancy Pelosi was America's first affirmative action Speaker of the House.

So how has affirmative action been working out so far in America ?

 

Who said it did?

 

The House and not the Speaker of the House has the Authority. The Speaker doesn't have the authority to vote for House Representatives that represent us, on the matter of an impeachment or impeachment investigation.

 

Still making excuses for the inane, incoherent, and corrupt President.

Worse. The excuses are getting more childish by the day: another round of rationalization roulette.

Let’s make this easy. You are not Trump and Trump is not you. So you made a mistake. Simply do what most of the country does when we make a mistake. Acknowledge it. Pull yourself up by your boot straps and move on. It’s not like you don’t have company.

 

It isn't at all that way and hasn't been so conducted the last two times there was an impeachment. This is nothing more than Pelosi trying desperately to cover for red state dems.

 

Still making excuses for the inane, corrupt, and entirely faux investigation conducted by the Dems I see...

 

I know that. But the poster who I quoted, would have a tough time figuring out how Clinton got on the impeached president list, without that Senate affirmative vote to remove. That is why I asked the question.

 

Again you cherry picking your subset when the constitution did not. . There have been 19 impeachments for Judges, Presidents, and federal officers , and about half have not had an initial floor vote . The last three times with Presidents, there has been a special council/ special prosecutor appointed to do the preliminary investigation, and the House used those reports as the foundation of for their preliminary vote to recommend further investigation an possible articles . . This time these committees have no Mueller, or Ken Starr, or Leon Jaworski repots. We have a lot less information on which to base that 'preliminary floor vote'. The House had a Ken Starr report when they voted for their inquiry. The House had an initial Watergate report ( absent the actual smoking gun" tapes) before they voted to start impeachment probe.

It is ludicrous to vote, when you don't have anything on which to decide whether this is worthy of further investigation. If you want to speed this through, stop obstructing and stonewalling and cooperate with the investigation so that we can move this to the floor more expeditiously.

 

You are correct; He said, "1. How was Clinton successfully impeached, if the Senate did not vote to impeach him?"

 

She has the same kind of Authority in the House as does Mitch Mcconnell has in the Senate … which is considerable, as we've seen.

 

guess it would be like President Clinton.

 

Oh boy. Would you like to rethink your answer?

The question was, " What do you call a president who was actually found guilty by the senate?"

 

Because...?

 

There have been only four for presidents. Only two of those in the last 100 years. One should at least attempt to compare apples to apples. Judges are not presidents. The congressional dems do not want to play fair and thereby look more likr political hack than people trying to find the truth the hell with them they can take it to the SCOTUS if they don't like it and find out how much authority they did have to do it the way they are doing it.